Many ADAPTT supporters know that I have been fortunate enough to give more than 60
lectures in high schools and universities over the last three years. The talks centered on
vivisection, veganism and ethics. Therefore, instead of authoring another story on the
unscientific aspect of animal research, I have decided to publish the vivisection section
verbatim. The ellipses represent pauses not excluded words.

Last year in the U.S. alone with a cold and callous premeditation
nearly 100 million monkeys, dogs, cats, pigs, rabbits, mice and rats were incarcerated and
infected with mutations of human diseases tortured in violent burn and brain-damage
re-creation experiments they were observed for data and then killed. Vivisection
which is the act of cutting, drugging, burning, blinding, shocking, addicting,
shooting, freezing, infecting and surgically mutilating live, healthy animals is
more than just bloody science and bloodthirsty academia it's a bloody fraud.

Animals are a completely different bio-mechanical entity than humans. The
anatomical, physiological, immunological, histological [dealing with the cell structures]
and even psychological differences are too great to overcome. At this moment a
formula for making animal-derived research relevant to a human is non-existent. Animal
research has not can not and will not save a human life. Let me
elucidate this point to you in a few ways.

Everyday in veterinary schools all across this world the fraud of
vivisection is substantiated. After talking with several veterinarians who unfortunately
have been fooled into believing that animal research can be beneficial to humans I
asked them when they were in vet school studying feline leukemia which
animal did they study upon. Cats, of course, they all replied. I said cats you
studied on cats for feline leukemia. Why didn't you study on dogs? They each replied
why would we study on dogs for feline leukemia research? I said I don't know
why would we study on dogs for human leukemia research?

Veterinarians invalidate the widespread use of species to species extrapolation
because they use cats for feline leukemia research horses for colic research
dogs for canine distemper research and so on. They don't use dogs for cats
pigs for dogs and monkeys for horses.

A footnote this topic I do oppose what takes place in veterinary schools on
ethical grounds. Understand, I cannot oppose it on scientific grounds because it is
scientifically justifiable to research on the same species for the species in question.
However, when it comes to using animals in research for humans I oppose this on
scientific grounds as well as ethical grounds.

No matter how diligently researchers try they can never re-create the
spontaneously occurring diseases that humans get. They can only re-create symptoms and
give mutations. And on top of that the experiments are always done in a
controlled manipulative environment where researchers can produce whatever answer
they're looking for. If researchers want to show that there is NO link between smoking and
lung cancer no problem just bring in some dogs hook them up to facial
mechanical devices And force them to inhale smoke with every breath. For the
record, it is true smoking does NOT cause lung cancer in dogs but then again
I haven't met too many dogs that smoke. How about showing that diet drugs are safe for
humans? No problem just bring in some rats gorge them until they become
obese and give them large doses of fenphen. For the record, the diet drug fenphen passed
the rat research protocols but was taken off the market in '98 after killing several
humans. Keep this in mind as well not one of Jerry's Kids has ever walked or been
cured even though the muscular dystrophy telethons have taken in more than $50 billion
dollars since its inception and that's a generous estimate it's probably much more.
The money came from kind people who have been duped by the animal research community's
guileful, mendacious and insidious hook this latest mouse experiment is very
hopeful and promising. The two favorite words of a vivisectionist hopeful and
promising translation send me more money so I can continue my lifelong
mission of gathering useless information.

And if you have any doubts about the monetary gain of vivisection protocols
this was in the 1998 Fall edition of The Oakland University Arts and Sciences newsletter
my alma mater. The front page discusses OU's bio-medical animal research programs.
Ready for this "Anne Hitt, an assistant professor of biology who joined the
faculty in 1997, has WON grants totaling nearly $1 million dollars from the National
Institutes of Health. WON GRANTS? W-O-N WON GRANTS. Most people are not aware that
every year the NIH provides the vivisectionist an opportunity to WIN around $5
billion dollars in grants. And every year our federal government provides these
vivisectionists an opportunity to WIN between $12 and $20 billion dollars in grants. And
the majority of that money coming from our tax dollars.

Andy Breslin, the scientific educator for the PCRM, once explained that every two
seconds someone in the world dies from a disease that the medical community has known how
to cure for nearly two thousand years. Every two seconds. There goes one person (pause)
and there goes another. That disease is malnutrition. Yet in early '98, with a hefty
grant, The Detroit Free Press reported that animal researchers were trying to identify the
hunger gene in rats.

How much more meaningless, idiotic and wasteful experiments will researchers
conduct and more importantly will society condone. Once again, we know how to cure
malnutrition. The sad truth is that medicine - in its myriad of treatments - is a
commodity. If you can't afford it, then you don't get it.

OHHH, by the way, did I mention that animal researchers ARE NOT EVEN HUMAN
DOCTORS. Animal researchers are trained in non human anatomy NOT HUMAN ANATOMY.

Charles Anderegg, who received his M.D. and Ph.D. from the Yale University School
of Medicine, explained "It is impossible to predict human reactions to drugs,
vaccines and other chemicals by testing them on animals." Still, vivisectionists
remain obdurate and unwilling to use the following 10 forms of true scientific research
techniques: 1) human-based clinical research; 2) epidemiology (study, causes and
distribution of human diseases); 3) cellular and molecular biology using human-based
tissue and cell cultures and in vitro; 4) autopsy research; 5) biopsy research; 6)
computer models using virtual reality, simulators and 3D programs; 7) mathematical models
using formulas to determine drug concoctions and reactions; 8) case studies; 9)
human-based DNA/genetic research; and 10) trial and error methodology.

Fortunately though, some people are responding to the truth. Dozens of charities
like Easter Seals, the American Kidney Fund and The International Eye Foundation,
to name a few only use the aforementioned methods of scientific research and, more
importantly, refuse to perform or fund any form of animal research. So, if the Easter
Seals engages in essential non-animal-based research for birth defects and The March of
Dimes engages in vivisection because it claims that's the only way to conduct
research I ask you who's lying? I hope you feel the same way that I do when
asked to select between two diametrically opposed positions.

Personally, I will always side with peace, benevolence and justice. Since healing
human beings cannot be based upon violent protocols and human medicine cannot be
based upon a false, fallacious and duplicitous model it's seems clear to me who's
lying [the animal research community.] Humanitarian and British author George
Bernard Shaw summed it up best when he once proclaimed, "Those who won't hesitate to
vivisect, won't hesitate to lie about it as well."